Judgment :- S.M. SIDICKK, J. ( 1 ) THE revision petitioners are the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit, who have been subsequently impleaded, and later the suit as against them was dismissed for nonpayment of batta by the plaintiff. The 1st respondent is the plaintiff and the other respondents are the defeandantsl to 27 in the suit. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition is filed as against the fair and decretal order dated 6. 8. 1998 passed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 on the file of the Court of District munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal. ( 3 ) THE Counsel for the revision petitioners and the 1st respondent/plaintiff were heard in full After hearing them the point that arises for determination in this Revision petition is to what relief the revision petitioners/defendants 28 and 29 are entitled to in this revision petition. ( 4 ) POINT : It is an admitted fact that the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein by. name sigamani filed and application under Order 1, rule-10 of C. P. C. in I. A. No. 200 of 1991 to implead the revision petitioners by name charles Paul and Aruldoss as the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit, and the said application in I. A. No. 200 of 1991 was allowed on 11. 12. 1991 and consequently the plaint was amended, and the revision petitioners by name charles Paul and Aruldoss were brought on record in the suit as the defendants 28 and 29 as it is evident from the amended plaint, a copy of which is given in the typed set if papers filed before this High Court. In others words the plaint was amended as per order dated 11. 3. 1992 in I. A. No. 125 of 1992 as a consequential order of impleading them as defendants 28 and 29 in the earlier application in i. A. No. 200 of 1991. So the revision petitioners by name Charles Paul and Arudloss are still on record in the suit as defendants 28 and 29, and their names have not been struck off or deleted so far. In the above background we have to consider the claim of the revision petitioners herein. So the revision petitioners by name Charles Paul and Arudloss are still on record in the suit as defendants 28 and 29, and their names have not been struck off or deleted so far. In the above background we have to consider the claim of the revision petitioners herein. ( 5 ) AFTER impleading them as the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit, it appears that the 1st respondent/plaintiff has not paid batta for the service of summons for the defendants 28 and 29, and as a result,-the suit as against the defendants 28 and 29 was dismissed for non-prosecution for non-payment of I. Such procedure is not contemplated because the defendants 28 and 29 were represented by a lawyer by filing vakalath even in the impleading petition in I. A. No. 200 of 1991, and therefore there is no question of sending a summons or service of suit summons on the defendants 28 and 29, the trial Court should not have and ought not to have dismissed the suit as against the defendants 28 and 29 for nonpayment of batta. ( 6 ) EVEN ignoring the latches or the failure on the part of the trial Court in dismissing the suit as against the defendants 28 and 29 for non-payment of batta, it is significant to note that the defendants 28 and 29 filed an application in I. A. No 65 of 1994 under Order 1, rule 10, C. P. C. to implead them once again and the said application in I. A. No. 65 of 1994 was dismissed on 23. 3. 1994 and as against the said order in I. A. No. 65 of 1994, the revision petitioners filed an appeal in C. M. A. No. 17 of 1994 and it was also dismissed on 14. 3. 1994. These are the admitted facts in this case. In the light of the admitted facts we have to consider the subsequent events that took place in the suit. 3. 1994. These are the admitted facts in this case. In the light of the admitted facts we have to consider the subsequent events that took place in the suit. ( 7 ) AFTER the dismissal of the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. in I. A. No. 65 of 1994, the revision petitioners, who are the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit, filed yet another application I. A. No. 142 of 1997 under order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. and the prayer in the application in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 is significant and it reads as follows :"for the reason stated in the accompanying affidavit it is prayed that this honble Court may be pleased to implead the petitioners herein as defendants 28 and 29 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 as they were already arrayed and thus render Justice". ( 8 ) THUS, the words "to implead the petitioners as defendants 28 and 29 in the suit as they were already arrayed" are important, and these words would disclose that the revision petitioners herein were already parties to the suit as defendants 28 and 29 in this suit. Not withstanding the significance of these words, the trial Court went on in dismissing the application under Order 1, Rule 10 of C. P. C. in i. A. No. 142 of 1997 against which dismissal, the present revision petition is filed. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff opposed this revision petition by stating that the application filed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 is barred by the principles of res judicata. Such a contention is untenable and cannot be upheld for the following reasons. ( 10 ) THE principles of res judicata are mentioned in Section 11 of C. P. C. which is as follows :"res judicata : No court shall try any suit or Issue in which the matter directly and substantially in Issue has been directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claim litigating under the same title, in a Court competent to try such suit or the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised and has been heard and finally decided by such court. "so Section 11 of C. P. C. states that there must be two suits in which the matter was directly and substantially the same. In the present case there is only one suit i. e. O. S. No. 7 of 1997 and therefore the principles of res judicata can have no application to the facts and circumstances of this case in dismissing the application in I. A. No. 142 of 1997, against which the present revision petition is filed. ( 11 ) THE learned District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal failed to note that the vakalath of the Revision Petitioners viz. , the defendants 28 and 29 were already filed in I. A. No. 200 of 1991 earlier, and again they entered appearance through a lawyer in i. A. No. 65 of 1994 and I. A. No. 142 of 1997 by filing their vakalath, and so the vakalath filed by the Revision Petitioners, who are defendants 28 and 29, will ensure the benefit of the suit itself, and there is no question of dismissing the suit as against the defendants 28 and 29 for payment of batta by the 1st respondent/plaintiff herein. Thereby the learned district Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, kodaikanal has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in him by law and failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in him illegally and with. material irregularity, and so this revision petition has to be allowed as prayed for, and the order passed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 has to be set aside, and the petition in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 has to be allowed, and the revision petitioners, who are arrayed as defendants 28 and 29 are permitted to contest the suit by filing their written statements. ( 12 ) AT this stage the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff made a fervent appeal that this suit for partition is of the year 1977 and so far the trial had not commenced. ( 12 ) AT this stage the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff made a fervent appeal that this suit for partition is of the year 1977 and so far the trial had not commenced. So in the interest of justice and to have speedy trial in the suit, the revision petitioner, who are defendants 28 and 29 are directed to file their written statements as early as possible and the trial Court is directed to take up the suit for trial after the filing of the written statements by defendants 28 and 29, and the trial court is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit within four months from the date of receipt of this order and send a communication to that effect to the Madras High court. Hence, I hold that the revision petition has to be allowed as prayed for but without costs, and the fair and decretal order dated 6. 8. 1998 passed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 in o. S. No. 7 of 1977 on the files of the Court of District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at kodaikanal are to be set aside, and the petition in i. A. No. 142 of 1997 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 has to be allowed as prayed for but without costs, and the revision petitioners, who are the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit in o. S. No. 7 of 1977, are directed, to file their written statements as early as possible, and the learned District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal is directed to complete the trial and dispose of the suit in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 within four months from the date of receipt of this order and to send a report about the disposal of the suit in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 to the high Court, Madras, and consequently I answer this point in favour of the revision petitioners/defendants 28 and 29 and as against the 1st respondent/plaintiff. ( 13 ) IN the result the revision petition is allowed as prayed for, but without costs. The fair and decretal order of the learned District munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal passed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 dated 6. 8. 1998 are set aside. ( 13 ) IN the result the revision petition is allowed as prayed for, but without costs. The fair and decretal order of the learned District munsif-cum Judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal passed in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 dated 6. 8. 1998 are set aside. The petition in I. A. No. 142 of 1997 in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 shall stand allowed as prayed for but without costs. The revision petitioners, who are the defendants 28 and 29 in the suit in o. S. No. 7 of 1977, are directed to file their written statements as early as possible. The learned District Judicial Magistrate at kodaikanal is directed to complete the trial and disposal of the suit in O. S. No. 7 of 1977 within four months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The learned District Munsif-cum-judicial Magistrate at Kodaikanal is directed to send a report about the disposal of the suit in o. S. No. 7 of 1977 to the High Court, Madras. ( 14 ) CONSEQUENTLY, the stay petition in c. M. P. No. 15807 of 1998 and Caveat petition no. 2989 of 1998 are dismissed as unnecessary. Revision Petition allowed. `